D0NK - Member - Quote
No, not all suitable access to suitable uses.
who decides? A committee? lots of bridleways are completely unsuitable for horses and there's quite a few that are unsuitable for some bikers aswell, one man's interesting downhill is another man's long walk with an unusual accompaniment. Wouldn't open to all with a few exceptional cases make a lot more sense?

Suitable in terms of environmental sustainability, not routing people through bogs that never dry out etc. Nothing to do with technical content really, and yes I'd suggest a group of people representing most of the interest groups.

redfordrider - Member - Quote
I think that any land owner in receipt of farm subsidies show be compelled to allow the public to have reasonable access . See Article

Sorry I got as far as george MoanBot

What is reasonable access?
Walking through fields while you drive potentially dangerous machinery around? Having to erect signs to keep the general public out of areas after crop spraying etc in every single field regardless of where it is?
Not being able to have a secure farm yard and allowing anyone to roam around.
Letting a bunch of idiots run their dogs round with no idea about the impact it has on the animals.

There were several reports during the main Foot and Mouth outbreak from members of the public who saw sheep limping and chewing - that must be what foot and mouth disease is.

Farms are workplaces, where activities go on that may not be safe unless you are dressed accordingly or aware of what is going on, allowing a full roaming right to everyone is dangerous.

I will happily see subsidies abolished if strict standards are applied to the importing of food to ensure it meets all of the requirements of the EU standards on quality, traceability, welfare, drug control, chemical usage and the rest.

I'm a Scot in exile in NE England. I haven't changed the way I ride - I just go where I want at sensible times and ride (mostly) sensibly. I'd only ride / walk the dog through a farmyard if it was on a marked footpath. I've had close to zero problems or hassle.

all thru the central belt i tend to think not. certainly there's barely a loch you can go to that isn't car camped all over, the laybys decorated with sacks of rubbish that people don't want cluttering up their cars but think it's okay someone else's council tax pay to remove. and of course let's not talk about the sewerage issue.

or maybe lets. because up in the islands they need to be building chemical disposal points for those white van 'campers' who can't and won't understand that a motorhome isn't wild camping, who seem to believe that anywhere and everywhere is a suitable place for them to park up and 'camp' because, obviously they're not like those terrible people down in loch lomond/chon/rannoch etc who need banning and any island types who say different must just be inbred.

as far as i can see the access code has meant the facilitation of the rural as service areas, playgrounds for a certain of middle class, who couldn't care less about the environment beyond what it provides for their entertainment and nothing for the culture (or what's left of it) that sustains it beyond their urban centred stereotypes.

There seems a fear that anarchy would ensue following greater access. This is largely unfounded. No doubt there will be some issues in particular areas. The law as it stands in England promotes an 'us and them attitude' between land owners and the public, evidently resulting an adversarial stance when I feel it is not required.

swiss01 » just for the sake of argument - does it really work in scotland?
all thru the central belt i tend to think not. certainly there's barely a loch you can go to that isn't car camped all over, the laybys decorated with sacks of rubbish that people don't want cluttering up their cars but think it's okay someone else's council tax pay to remove. and of course let's not talk about the sewerage issue.
or maybe lets. because up in the islands they need to be building chemical disposal points for those white van 'campers' who can't and won't understand that a motorhome isn't wild camping, who seem to believe that anywhere and everywhere is a suitable place for them to park up and 'camp' because, obviously they're not like those terrible people down in loch lomond/chon/rannoch etc who need banning and any island types who say different must just be inbred.
as far as i can see the access code has meant the facilitation of the rural as service areas, playgrounds for a certain of middle class, who couldn't care less about the environment beyond what it provides for their entertainment and nothing for the culture (or what's left of it) that sustains it beyond their urban centred stereotypes.

I can't see how roadside camping is relevant to the discussion on this thread.

As for the solution to that, I'd simply insert a clause into the LR(S)A to the effect that camping isn't allowed within 1/2 mile of a public road. Alternatively, the Police could actually enforce the existing laws.

What you say may be true of a certain demographic but I took a camper van and tent round the isles and the west coast. We parked up wherever looked appealing, woke up to amazing views every morning and took all our rubbish with us. And I suspect that the majority of campervan-owning Scots would do the same.

As for laybys full of rubbish - that's the same anywhere you go in the UK. Nothing whatsoever to do with the right to roam. More to do with selfish gits.

Besides all that, the RTR isn't about camper vans, it's about being allowed to walk / cycle in a sensible fashion wherever you like.